William J. Olson, P.C., Attorneys At Law

Your learned and wise counsel was crucial to the success we had.... I consider you both true friends and loyal patriots to the true cause of liberty in our Country."
Alabama Chief Justice Roy S. Moore

"Your creativity in getting constitutional issues raised before the U.S. District Court was
instrumental in the favorable outcome that we enjoyed when the Government came after us."
Bernard von NotHaus, The Liberty Dollar

"You were there for us when the FTC came after us. Yours is one of the few law firms that really understands the nature of the threat posed to alternative medicine by Big Pharma and its friends in government. You worked very hard for us, showing they really cared for our welfare as well as the issues, and wrote many powerful legal briefs in our defense including an amicus to the Supreme Court. What we will always cherish most is, you prayed with us!"
Jim & Tricia Feijo, Daniel Chapter One

"They always say, 'Don't fight the Fed.' But you did fight them for us and beat them and recovered our attorneys' fees as well. How many other lawyers have done that? Not many. Few have the talent and fewer still the courage."
Chris Powell, Secretary-Treasurer, Gold Anti-trust Action Committee (GATA)

"In the many years since I was court-martialed for disobeying an unlawful order to serve
the United Nations under a foreign officer, you have never abandoned me or my cause."
Michael New

"The principled positions that you advanced to the U.S. Supreme Court in your
brief were invaluable in obtaining our victory in Heller v. District of Columbia."
Dick Heller

"If you want to take a course in the U.S. Constitution, just spend some timereading the briefs and articles available on the website of the Olson law firm."
Former Congressman Steve Stockman (1995-97; 2013-15)

"Paul and I can’t thank you enough for your excellent and successful work as part of our federal criminal defense team. Your firm’s technical legal challenges to the indictment no doubt forced the government to reconsider its case and drop six of the eight counts against us. And Rob’s four trips to Houston, courtesy of Gun Owners of America, helped us get ready for trial. Your firm’s knowledge and experience with federal gun law was invaluable, and eventually the jury acquitted us of the two remaining charges against us. When the judge read the “not guilty” verdicts, it was a wonderful day for us all. "
Robert G. Arwady, Houston, Texas

"I have worked with your firm on firearms cases for more than a decade, and it is always a pleasure. Most recently, your work was very helpful to me in my role as defense counsel in a federal criminal trial. Your firm’s extensive work with federal gun laws helped fashion some creative arguments that really helped us win the case."
Robert Sanders, Esquire, Winston-Salem, NC
(former Assistant Director for Criminal Enforcement, BATF).

Today, our firm filed comments with the division of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security responsible for Refugee matters, opposing changes in the form used to seek refugee status. If changed as proposed, the form will fail to obtain from applicants the information needed for the government to make a proper determination as to whether a person claiming refugee status actually qualifies as a refugee under federal law.

Today our firm filed comments with the FDA in response to a request for comment on its “tentative conclusion” that the ingredient vinpocetine does not meet the definition of a “dietary supplement.” Our comments explained that vinpocetine fits within the definition of “dietary supplement” as a “constituent of a botanical.” Then we analyzed the four statutory requirements for removal of a dietary supplement from the market, and in this case, at least two of these requirements have not been met. Finally, we addressed the ways in which vinpocetine has been beneficial to Americans with a wide variety of health problems, including symptoms of Alzheimer’s.

Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a petition for certiorari in a case involving a Fourth Amendment violation where a person’s whereabouts were tracked for months by seizing his cell site location information. We argued against the Supreme Court’s “third-party doctrine,” which holds that a person does not have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” if he voluntarily gives information to third parties. Further, the brief relied on the Court’s recently reinvigorated property rights basis of the Fourth Amendment, urging the Court to consider a person’s cell phone data and location as his property even though not a physical object.

An FDA Advisory Committee is considering imposing new and unnecessary limitations on what Compounding Pharmacists may use to create products that are needed by many people, especially seniors. Remarkably, the FDA Advisory Committee is reported to have only one member who has experience with Compounding. We filed comments for The Senior Citizens League and the Center for Medical Freedom with the FDA opposing these arbitrary limitations.

Today, our firm filed comments with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (“ATF”) in response to the ATF’s proposal to combine the federal application to be a firearms dealer (“Form 7”) with the application to be a Collector of Curios and Relics. As our comments pointed out, ATF’s proposed new combined form is an attempt to combine apples and oranges. Dealers (businesses) are nothing like collectors (private persons). The proposed form is complicated and unclear as to which sections apply to which license. Moreover, the proposed form eliminates current language which is helpful to a person knowing whether or not he needs to apply for a license. Our comments were filed on behalf of Gun Owners of America, Inc. and Gun Owners Foundation.

On behalf of the Free Speech Coalition and Free Speech Defense and Education Fund, we submitted comments to the IRS asking it to protect the confidentiality the donor lists of nonprofit organizations. The IRS had invited comments on its Publication 1075 relating to security guidelines for government agencies in possession of confidential tax
information.

There is an effort underway by elements in the federal and state judiciary and leftist lawyers and lawyer groups to increase political controls over lawyers — on whom the American people rely on to protect their interests. Some states are trying to force lawyers to devote free legal services to favored classes of persons. Historically, this proposal has been a cover for the misuse of law reform, class actions, emboldening the courts to legislate social policy. And even when it extends legal services to the poor, it frequently does so at the expense of the middle class.

This morning, the American Thinker published Jeremiah Morgan’s article about the amicus brief we filed in Manuel v. City of Joliet. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in this case on Wednesday, October 5. The article explains why victims of police misconduct should be able to bring a Fourth Amendment based suit when police fabricate evidence to obtain an indictment.

Bill Olson was honored to write the Foreword for the re-issuance of what may prove to be the most important book ever written questioning the authority of the federal government over the sale and use of pharmaceuticals. Professor of Pharmacy Richard Henry Parrish II originally wrote his book, “Defining Drugs: How Government Became the Arbiter of Pharmaceutical Fact” in 2003. Now issued in paperback with a new Introduction and new Foreword, Professor Parrish has charted the growing evidence of corruption in the FDA and FTC, and those agencies’ lawless assertion of power over all aspects of all substances and devices in any way related to healthcare. This book is even more important now than when first written.

We were pleased to have persuaded the FEC to act unanimously to modify a Conciliation Agreement entered into in 2005. The reason was that the state of election law had changed, based on recent court rulings, which then were followed by changes in Commission regulations.

Today, on behalf of the Free Speech Coalition, we sent a letter to Congressman John C. Fleming, M.D., expressing the Free Speech Coalition’s support for H.Res. 828, the House’s impeachment of IRS Commissioner John Koskinen.

Today, for the Center for Medical Freedom, we filed comments with the Virginia Joint Commission on Health Care opposing efforts to terminate the religious exemption for school vaccination requirements.

Today our firm filed comments on behalf of Gun Owners of America, Inc. and Gun Owners Foundation opposing the proposed changes to the Form 4473, a form ATF claims continues to be necessary, though it is not required by any federal law.

Today our firm filed comments on behalf of Gun Owners of America, Inc. and Gun Owners Foundation opposing proposed regulations issued by ATF to require not only firearms dealers, but also manufacturers and importers, to certify that secure gun storage or safety devices are maintained anywhere firearms are sold.

Today, we filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in support of a challenge to the D.C. Concealed Carry statute which was brought by Matthew Grace and others. Our brief argues that the District of Columbia Council based its argument on the notion of hidden exceptions to the Bill of Rights, and a flawed understanding of the difference between the restricted nature of firearms rights in England versus the unrestricted nature of firearms rights in the Colonies. Our brief also argues that it is illegitimate for the Court to engage in judicial balancing tests of any type, as they were barred by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. Lastly, we argued that the government does not have the authority to make predictive judgments as to who may violate the law and restrict liberties to prevent crimes that it fears may someday occur.

We were grateful that the National Law Journal published the fourth article in the U.S. Justice Foundation’s series on the proposed ABA Ethics Changes. This Op Ed was the lead in the National Law Journals email to subscribers sent out on August 8, 2016.

CNSNews.com published the third article in the U.S. Justice Foundation’s expose on the American Bar Association. This article focused on the quasi-governmental role that the ABA plays — in reviewing federal judges and in recommending changes to the Model Rules of Practice, a/k/a “ethics.”

The U.S. Justice Foundation engaged our firm to publish a series of articles exposing the “politically correct” ethics proposals being considered by the American Bar Association at its annual meeting in San Francisco. The American Thinker published the first article in the series.

In one of the FOIA cases we have filed for Citizens United seeking emails relating to Hillary Clinton’s time at the U.S. Department of State, today we filed an Opposition to State’s last minute effort to avoid compliance with the court-ordered schedule to produce documents that it itself had earlier proposed. The State Department now wants the Court to allow it a remarkable 27 additional months to provide the requested documents. Our proposed form of order is also attached.

Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the Tenth Circuit in support of the right of Kansas to require that persons registering to vote under the National Voter Registration Act of 1994 submit documentary proof of citizenship. Our brief supported the position taken by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach.

Today our firm filed comments on behalf of Gun Owners of America, Inc. and Gun Owners Foundation opposing proposed regulations issued by the Obama Social Security Administration to add more names to the NICS system which would prevent many persons with disabilities from buying firearms.

The Daily Caller carried a story today about U.S. State Department request for extraordinary delays in making public disclosure of certain of Hillary Clinton’s emails, in a case brought by our firm for Citizens United.

Our article discussing the flawed logic of the Supreme Court’s decision in Whole Woman’s Health, and extolling the excellent dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas was published by The American Thinker, and run by CNS News and Restoring Liberty.

Posts by Year

Posts by Tag

Sign Up for our Newsletter

Olsonlaw Twitter Feed

This William J. Olson, P.C. Web site, including all information and material appearing herein, is for general informational purposes only, and is not intended to -- and does not -- constitute legal advice, advertising, or solicitation. No one should rely or act on any information contained on this Web site, including other sites that may be referenced herein, without seeking professional advice or counsel. No advice or counsel is provided in or by this Web site. Furthermore, no attorney-client relationship is created, or established, between William J. Olson, P.C. or any of its attorneys and anyone by virtue of anyone accessing or using this Web site, transmitting information to the Web site or receiving information from the Web site. William J. Olson, P.C. does not recommend use of the Internet, including e-mail, for the transmission of confidential, proprietary, and/or otherwise sensitive information.